[te_platt]

Does he mean climate scientists in general or Hadley Climate Research Unit specifically? Or some mix?

From http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220:

"Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today"

Billions of taxpayers money is no exaggeration for the general case.

[electromagnetic]

Hadley is presently the only place where proof of tampering has emerged, which IMO casts serious doubt on any work emerging from Hadley if it cannot prove that its work is not being tampered with.

IMHO I doubt this is an endemic problem in climate research, no matter how much I despise the many statisticians claiming they're scientists. Statisticians show correlations, scientists prove causation. However with literally billions of dollars on the table, it certainly makes me curious of the validity of other researchers work.

With a $1.7B cake on the table, are people lying so that the host of the party (the federal government) gives them a slice?

[CWuestefeld]

AIUI, Hadley is the origin of much of the baseline data that everyone else uses. And that data itself isn't just raw numbers, but is massaged to factor out the heat island effect, for example.

The snippets of emails that I saw suggest (but don't prove, contrary to their opposition) that the methodology for building that baseline data was tainted.

So if that underlying data must now be considered corrupt, then it also calls into question any other research that used the baseline data.

[gjm11]

The snippets of emails I've seen that allegedly come from the Hadley archive do not, in fact, constitute "proof of tampering".